I simply said we had customers expressing concern about using GPLv2 web2py framework for the task of developing a closed source web2py application. It was never about making closed source versions of web2py itself. Anyway, I think this issue has been addressed with authority in massimo's posts and that's good enough for me.
I can perhaps relate my experience with CakePHP (using it since the middle of 2006). Every once in a while I see a published code snippet/module/plugin saying something like "this was a part of our closed source application and we are now making it public..." etc. The MIT license of Cake PHP enables this without any question. But apparently so does the license of web2py. We are talking about the application side of the things here... I have never either wanted or needed to fork the CakePHP framework and make it de facto closed source. I'm not saying it hasn't been done (MIT license and all), but I've never seen it or done it. So if the end result is the same (one can freely produce open or closed source applications, modules, etc.), i'm all for the GPLv2 license. It is clearly better for the community.
